Finally, a permanent prosecution service

Better late than never!
The flaw was systemic starting from the appointing process to the reward structure to their frequent change. It seems the purpose was seldom to get justice but to reward supporters. The result was the defeat in crucial cases especially where the government was to gain either financially or in terms of property.

The government's decision to start a permanent prosecution service by employing professional lawyers is a welcome move. Public prosecutors, who have been selected mainly because of their loyalty to the party rather than their credentials, have been criticised for their poor knowledge of criminal laws and for not performing their duties properly. The flaw was systemic starting from the appointing process to the reward structure to their frequent change. It seems the purpose was seldom to get justice but to reward supporters. The result was the defeat in crucial cases especially where the government was to gain either financially or in terms of property.

This move by the government, therefore, is one in the right direction and can significantly improve the efficiency of the prosecution system and ensure justice to victims represented by public prosecutors.

What is crucial though, is implementing this decision effectively and quickly. From our reports we have learned that there have been attempts for such reform in the legal system in the past but to no avail. It is important that the government follows through this decision, making sure that only qualified lawyers, who are well versed in criminal law and are not encumbered by partisan obligations, are appointed as public prosecutors. We also hope that the monthly allowance and honorarium structure is appropriately revised to ensure that the public prosecutors can devote more time in representing the government in court.

For ordinary citizens, the existence of efficient, qualified public prosecutors is certainly reassuring. It gives them the hope that criminals will be meted out justice instead of going scot free because of poor legal representation of the plaintiffs in court. For the justice system this is certainly a major step forward.